[EL] “The Anti-ALEC alliance: Group at heart of anti-conservative crusade is shadowy organization funded by leftwing millionaires and ``billionaires”

[Joe La Rue]

Everything you quoted is a report; so, yes, I stand by "just reporting."
It's true: the money is secret, as the Free Beacon reported. But, in my
view, that does not make it wrong, and neither the Free Beacon nor anyone
quoted in the article claims it is.

It is, however, *frustrating* to not know who supports and funds these
efforts. I get that. I would like to know who is funding the attack on
ALEC. But my curiousity and desire to know should not trump the donors'
First Amendment right to privacy in their association.  Because none of the
interests in compelled disclosure identified by the Supreme Court in *Buckley
*and its progeny is implicated, issue advocacy disclosure should not be
compelled.

If any of the donors are part of the reform community, though, one would
think they would self-report. After all, it would be hypocritical to demand
that others disclose their donations while keeping their own secret. I
trust, therefore, that no reformers are donating to these groups.

Joe
___________________
*Joseph E. La Rue*
cell: 480.272.2715
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message.



On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  Just reporting Joe?  You don't think that the implication of the article
> is that the funders should be disclosed?  Here's a piece of it:
>
>  Matthew Vadum, who investigates foundations for the Capital Research
> Center, said the Democracy Alliance is “very secret.”
>
> “They’re not required to file a 990 IRS form because they’re not a
> tax-exempt non-profit,” Vadum said. “And the money doesn’t pass through
> their hands anyway. It’s what some people call a ‘donors’ collaborative’
> for wealthy left-wingers.”
>
> I believe the same rules for disclosure should apply to the left and
> right.  I want to see disclosure of election-related funding, as well as
> disclosure of funding for lobbying activities---regardless of the
> ideological position of those buying the ads.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/14/2012 8:53 AM, Joe La Rue wrote:
>
> Referring to the Washington Free Beacon article about the alliance trying
> to dismantle ALEC, Rick wrote that "the right wants disclosure of funding
> for issue advocacy." As you might imagine, I support ALEC and hate what's
> happening to them. But I'm also opposed to disclosure for issue advocacy.
> So I quickly clicked the link to find out which conservatives are pushing
> for disclosure of issue advocacy donors. And, unless I'm missing it, the
> article doesn't say that any are. Rather, the Free Beacon has reported that
> secret money is funding the effort, with no call that it be disclosed. It's
> simply reporting, which I think is fair for conservatives to do.
>
> It's surprising, though, that *reformers* haven't demanded that the money
> being given to ProgressNow and Democracy Alliance be disclosed. I would
> expect reformers to make that demand, if they *really *are concerned
> about *disclosure*, and not just disclosure of the funding of GOP and
> conservative-leaning advocacy. But unless I've missed it, the usual
> reformer groups are completely silent on this one.
>
> Joe
> ___________________
> *Joseph E. La Rue*
>  cell: 480.272.2715
> email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.htmlhttp://electionlawblog.org
> Pre-order The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTvwww.thevotingwars.com
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120614/477a7180/attachment.html>